He said his attempt to demolish the house was thwarted by the presence of bats and newts, and that he had sold the property so it was no longer his responsibility.

'I am entirely satisfied that Mr Fidler knew what was required by the court'

The council had ruled out allowing the castle to stay because it breached national and local planning rules designed to protect the green belt, the court heard.

Counsel for the local authority, Stephen Whale, said Mr Fidler had deceived the council for many years and had treated the planning system and court processes with contempt.

The judge said Mr Fidler's argument about the potential presence of protected species was misconceived - as this was not an absolute bar to demolition work - and the document relating to the purported sale of the property had no legal standing.

"I am entirely satisfied that Mr Fidler knew what was required by the court and the mistake he has made is confusing his disagreements with the council with the requirements of this court as to what must now be done in order to achieve a lawful outcome," Mr Justice Dove said.

"Whatever may have been his difficulties with the council, the focus of his responsibility had to be to comply with the order he consented to and which was made by this court some time ago."

Describing Mr Fidler as an "intelligent and determined man", the judge added: "This process has gone on now for many years.

"It is time now for those breaches of planning control to be remedied and that is what will happen. Otherwise there will be serious consequences."

Time Line

Honeycrock Farm Saga

2006

Hay bales removed to reveal castle house

2007

Reigate and Banstead Borough Council issues enforcement notices.

2008

Public inquiry planning appeal against enforcement notices.

2009

High Court appeal to challenge 2008 decision of planning inspector.

2010

High Court judge dismisses the appeal and the council's enforcement notices remain valid.

2010

Mr Fidler is granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal to challenge the High Court ruling.

2011

Court of Appeal decision rules Mr Fidler should not be granted leave to appeal against High Court decision.

2009-2013

New planning applications for certificate of lawfulness and appeals dismissed.

March 2016

April 2016

June 2016

Council extends order to give extra month for Fidler to demolish house

June 2016

Hidden castle saga 'brought to a close' after Fidler demolishes house

Following the court's judgment, a spokesman for Reigate and Banstead Borough Council said: "We are pleased that the judge agreed with our case in full. Today’s judgment provides the best chance of Mr Fidler’s compliance with all of the outstanding enforcement notices, which is what we have always sought.

"We’re also pleased that the judge wholly rejected the allegations Mr Fidler made against the council and its staff.

"The judge concluded that Mr Fidler had intentionally defied the High Court’s injunction order, despite having consented to the terms of the order and knowing the consequences if he failed to meet them.

“This is a situation of Mr Fidler’s own making. He has had plenty of opportunity to comply with the outstanding enforcement notices. He previously admitted that he deliberately set out to circumvent planning rules. Also, he had another house on the site when he began building this new one.

“Mr Fidler can be in no doubt that the judge’s expectation is for the house to be demolished and all the enforcement notices be complied with in their entirety before 6 June 2016."

Ordered to pay costs of court hearing

The council statement continued: "Local residents expect us to protect their countryside. The pleasant environment is one of the reasons they love living here.

"If we fail to act, it would give others free reign to build dwellings in the green belt without fear of recrimination.

"Reigate and Banstead Borough Council is committed to protecting the borough's character and will continue to take firm action against anyone who deliberately flouts planning rules.

“We reiterate previous offers made to Mr Fidler to talk with us about alternative accommodation options available to him on the site.”

Mr Fidler, who was accompanied in court by his wife Linda and a number of supporters, left without making a comment.